"Please, tax us!"

[Edric O]

In light of the new German government's plans for tax cuts, a group of rich Germans have started a petition to try to persuade the government to raise their taxes instead.

"I have a lot of money I do not need," said one of the signatories.

Read about it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321967.stm

http://www.appell-vermoegensabgabe.de/

What a rare example of honesty from the rich! It's very commendable, really. Too bad they also seem to be hopelessly naive - they are surprised they don't seem to get much support from their fellow capitalists. Heh.

[Andrew]

I believe on Ontario, Canada tax forms, people can pay extra taxes to help pay off the provincial debt if they want.

I can't find article, nor quickly looing over some tax forms. But I remember seeing it on tv and how not many do it. :P

EDIT:

Think I found it

Ontario Opportunities Fund

Give extra money to government, and pay less taxes. :)

Ontario Opportunities Fund more info.

The Ontario Opportunities Fund (the fund) allows Ontario residents to reduce the provincial deficit and debt by making monetary contributions. Contributions to the fund are considered gifts to the Crown. If you make a monetary contribution to the fund, you will be issued a receipt and will be eligible to claim a non-refundable tax credit on your income tax return for the taxation year in which you make your contribution. The fund will also receive proceeds from any major asset or enterprise that the province sells, and any funds that remain once the deficit target has been met each year.

[Mahdi]

There's also an option on your tax forms where you can tell the Ontario government to keep your tax refund (if you qualify for one) and put it towards the provincial debt. 

I worked two T1 seasons in an Ontario acounting firm and never once heard of someone doing so.

[chatfsh]

What is this?  I might have the opportunity to give even more to my bloated and wasteful government??  Quick, sign me up!

Seriously, I prefer donating to reputable charities where I can see my funds being put to good use helping the poor and disadvantaged. Giving more to a government notoriously run by greedy and corrupt politicians seems not only futile, it seems an egregiously inefficient use of one's funds. :)

[Wolf]

Yeah, but a lot of those organizations are pretty bloated and wasteful, too, even when compared to the government. Hold on to your money while it's good, says I.

[chatfsh]

Perhaps, but I still give to charities for three reasons:

1) When I give to reputable agencies that promote transparency by allowing contributors to view their financial records and observe/participate in their community projects, I feel content that the funds are being put to good use.

2)  I could no longer justify withholding money from reputable charities on the basis that the funds might be embezzled or misappropriated. By giving to such organizations I feel that I have done my due diligence to the best of my ability and therefore do not fret over what happens to the funds once they leave my pocket.

3)  Being generous with my financial resources gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside as good deeds typically do.

[Andrew]

Yeah, but a lot of those organizations are pretty bloated and wasteful, too, even when compared to the government. Hold on to your money while it's good, says I.

I thought in Canada charities had to keep 10% overhead max, or at least that is the target.

Hmm, can't find exact sources, but I remember seeing it on tv. Maybe someone saying only donate to someone who has 10% or less overhead.

CRA'S PROPOSED NEW GUIDANCE FOR CHARITIES OPERATING OUTSIDE OF CANADA

An example given by CRAis a situation where the Canadian charity contributes to a project that spends 90% of its funds on charitable work and 10% on overhead and administration. CRA’s position is that the Canadian charity can apply 90% of its contribution towards meeting its disbursement quota obligation.

I'd really suggest donating locally to food bank etc, as you might see the benefits of it. And if big enough donation, people might know and be thankful. :)

One guy in my area donated $70k to a soup kitchen, and it was enough to pay for food for every Wednesday of the week for 11 years. They named the day after him at the soup kitchen. Something like that you get direct results and see benefits all the time. Not much corruption to worry about.

[Edric O]

Seriously, I prefer donating to reputable charities where I can see my funds being put to good use helping the poor and disadvantaged. Giving more to a government notoriously run by greedy and corrupt politicians seems not only futile, it seems an egregiously inefficient use of one's funds. :)

I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, I despise private, undemocratic institutions. I do not like charities because the people who need the charity do not get any power to decide how the money is spent. If you are in need, charitable organizations do nothing to empower you. On the contrary, they keep you dependent and powerless by excluding you from any possibility of influencing their decisions. You just have to hope and pray that the charitable powers-that-be will happen to donate money towards something that will help you.

On the other hand, currently existing governments aren't much better. I love and support the idea of a public, democratic body making decisions about how to allocate society's wealth, but let's face it - capitalist governments are about as transparent as a brick, and the amount of popular control over their policymaking is microscopically small.

So, right now, my plan is to donate money to charities if or when I start earning an income that would allow me to do so. However, that only makes me feel like I'm donating money to the lesser evil. I would greatly prefer to be able to give money to a socialist government instead.

I guess those German rich people have somewhat similar opinions about charities and governments, but they think governments are better (or at least that their government is better).

[Wolf]

Just because I haven't made a grandly offensive post in all of, oh, three days, allow me to take issue with the notion that "letting people who need charity decide how the money is spent" is a good driving principle of charity, or even a good idea at all. Having lived in several urban areas, it's a well-known piece of street wisdom that it's better to hand a beggar, vagrant, or other kind of panhandler food than to give him money. Why? Because half the time he or she runs off and buys alcohol or drugs--not necessarily these vices, but usually--and only sometimes do they buy food. Unfortunately, because many of the urban homeless and poor, at least in the United States, are the products of deinstitutionalization of insane asylums, many are not qualified to make serious, efficient, and well-informed financial decisions about their future. Indeed, the homeless and poor also contain a disproportionate number of individuals who did not have the benefit of stable family environments for the most basic forms of "common sense" education, and though it might be needless to say, the group also disproportionately represents those who did not have even close to a full-run of public education. Any homeless shelter will tell you the same: don't give them money, give them food, clothes, or medicine (if the situation warrants it).

In short, just because giving a panhandler a cheeseburger instead of a dollar might, in some theoretical sense, "diminish" his "freedom" by depriving him of a "meaningful choice," it does not necessarily follow that the good done by providing the cheeseburger did not outweigh the "harm" done by depriving him of a choice that can be understood only in intellectual terms.

[Edric O]

Wolf, you are missing the point. I wasn't talking about direct money transfers to the needy. Obviously it would be a bad idea for charities to just hand people money and then go away. But it would be a very good idea for charities to give the needy the power to make democratic decisions on questions like "Where are we going to build the new soup kitchen?", "What kind of food shall we buy with the money we have?", "Should we build more shelters? If so, where, and what kind?" and so on and so forth.

In other words, I want charities to teach the principle that the community has a certain budget, and the people of that community will decide - collectively, not individually - how the budget is going to be divided between various uses.

Maybe there should be some constraints on the use of the budget (e.g. "no alcohol"), but there is a big difference between letting people make their own decisions within certain limits and having someone else make all decisions for them.

[Wolf]

Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the operations of most modern charities to tell you whether or not that's the norm, or whether it's a norm that can/should be followed. Certainly, when charities seek to feed people or to build critical service structures, or to provide important services, they should do them in as efficient a manner as possible while still respecting the wishes of the people they're trying to help. I imagine this has more to do with the practical exigencies of a particular situation than with any general principle of giving.

[Dante]

At least some people are trying.

As for the matter of charity, I'm with Edric on this one. It's a Victorian ideal that's past its time. Of course my solution would take a rather different shape, but suffice to say that I do not believe in charity as a means to support people. Donating to environmental organisations and research councils now, that's fine and dandy.

[Wolf]

I'm with you there, Dante--giving money to causes/programs you believe in is a fine thing, and a good use of your time/money. Though, I think generally, we look more favorably on, say... endowing a university program as opposed to lobbying for a bill. The former is associated with high ideals, the latter with dirty politics. Maybe this is merely illustrative of all the wonderful things humans can do with cash.

[Dante]

I found something online which I think sums up Edric's point, if I correctly understand it, rather nicely:

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

- Dom H

[Wolf]

Well, of course. But--sort of to bring the conversation back to its original center, that being the activities of the extraordinarily wealthy--it's highly likely that the class of people who have made tremendous amounts of money, and who are therefore looking for something to do with that money, are also the class of people that jet around, make big business decisions, and generally engage in behavior that... well... shall we say precludes them from taking an active, personal role in such causes as the environment or advanced scientific research. In the former case, their lifestyle prevents it--the same lifestyle that enables them to make gobs of cash--and in the latter, they're probably not even remotely qualified to judge the research efforts of individual professors. Here, I would say that it's actually better for them simply to give millions of dollars to specific causes rather than attempt to effect drastic changes in their lifestyle that cannot tenably be supported. You or I, on the other hand, are probably better off planting trees and educating ourselves as opposed to putting a $20 bill in the mail. That amount of money won't make a dent, whereas, we're still in a position to take an active, personal role in effecting positive changes in the world.

[chatfsh]

Or better yet, if one has the financial means and the ability to do so, why not do both?  Contribute monetarily to your pet cause in addition to engaging in projects that will improve the overall plight of mankind.  Yes, I think that is the most satisfactory solution.  Of course if one is absent the financial means, then the doing of good is perfectly adequate and acceptable. :)